Talk:Starbase 6
Enwright's station Should Commodore Enwright's station be here, since we don't know as a fact it isn't DS-K7? Also why was the crew held in a security holding section? Federation 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC) : Because Lurry was in charge of K7. --Alan del Beccio 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Look at Starbase 11. Portmasters change. Federation 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) : Ok, simpler answer: It was never stated as being DSK6, DSK7, DSL7, DS9 or anything of the sort--hence "unnamed"-- and therefore making such an assumption would be purely speculation. --Alan del Beccio 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Since we really don't know either way, I'd rather just see it as a note under the DSK7 article. Federation 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ::But then it wouldn't be covered anywhere. It'd just be in a background section on another station's article (possibly). I don't see a problem with leaving a note here that it might be K-7, but "both" stations need to be covered equally.--Tim Thomason 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. Thank you. --Alan del Beccio 04:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) : This was pre-retcon. --Alan (talk) 11:55, October 3, 2018 (UTC) Split I propose a split of the studio model section to its own page for reasons of: *Being large enough *and as such, the section is overshadowing its in-universe POV contents. --Sennim 18:59, October 22, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure a split is necessary in this case. The article isn't that long.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:26, October 30, 2011 (UTC) Maybe true, but there is also an aesthetics element about it...It just looks off...the appendices section only consists of one item, the model section, no background other than the model, no apocrypha, no external links, no nothing... in this particular case the look of the article IMHO would be served by adding a disambig....just my two cents--Sennim 16:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :It's generally not good to split articles unless the article is getting a bit long. Why make things harder for readers by making them have to click through another page, when the info can easily fit here? :If you want to add background other than the model and apocrypha notes to round out the page, feel free. And there already is a relevant external link, to Memory Beta.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) My point is: There is Nothing Else!!!!!!!!, nor will there ever be--Sennim 23:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::If anything, I wonder whether information about the Vanguard Station model (which isn't Starbase 6, and not even canon itself) should really be located on this page - or if it wouldn't better be located at Star Trek: Vanguard. If that is cleaned up, I don't think there's too much information for a single article. -- Cid Highwind 23:18, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Well, it was just a suggestion...considering the resistance it is just not worth the opposition , so Concede.--Sennim 23:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :::If the updated Starbase 6 model is based on the Vanguard one, and it certainly seems to be, the Vanguard information would be relevant for the section. - 23:45, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Not wanting to put fire onto flaming fire: but every reference to the Vanguard Station was modeled upon the "starbase 6'' station "--Sennim 00:35, November 26, 2011 (UTC) ::Re:Archduk3 - "relevancy" doesn't necessarily mean that information has to be placed on exactly this page, though - there could be a link to another article containing the information, if the information is a better fit there than here. ::Re:Sennim - what do you mean? Wasn't the "redesigned SB6" modeled after what had already been seen as Vanguard/SB47, not the other way around? -- Cid Highwind 16:51, December 3, 2011 (UTC) Dear Cid, The redesigned SB6 was modeled after Vanguard, my bad if I´ve confused the matter...but I´m cool with this not being split off as per your arguments, so no worries--Sennim 16:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC)